UKPOL.CO.UK

Tag: James Sunderland

  • James Sunderland – 2023 Speech on Brownfield Development and the Green Belt

    James Sunderland – 2023 Speech on Brownfield Development and the Green Belt

    The speech made by James Sunderland, the Conservative MP for Bracknell, in Westminster Hall, the House of Commons on 9 February 2023.

    I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton) on securing the debate and welcome the Minister to her place. I also thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Theresa Villiers) and my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Bob Seely) for all the work that has been done to progress the housing agenda in the right way—in particular through new clause 21, of which I am a huge fan. I also thank everyone for their speeches today; I agree with most of what has been said.

    Ultimately, we are talking about the balance between brownfield land and the green belt; it is important that we focus redevelopment on brownfield, not the green belt. We have an acute housing crisis in the UK—we need more housing—because the population is getting older, people are separating, and immigration is on the increase. We have to ensure that we have enough houses for people to live in, so there is no question but that we must build more housing. The issue is where and how we build it.

    I am a fan of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill. In effect, I am speaking in support of it. It will drive local growth and empower local leaders to regenerate their areas. It will regenerate the high street in town centres and give new powers for rental auctions and permanent pavement licensing. It will introduce compulsory design codes to ensure redevelopment reflects community preferences. We are giving powers back to the community, and that is really important. It will also introduce a new infrastructure levy to fund affordable housing.

    On housing targets, I was never a fan of the terrible Lichfield formula, so I give the Government full credit for listening and overturning it. We now have advisory targets, which are the right thing to do. I am dead against mandatory targets, but if anything, I want to see the end of advisory targets too, because councils are best placed to decide what housing they need locally.

    I commend the Government on their brownfield development programme. Some £1.8 billion was allocated in the 2021 spending review, including £300 million of locally led grant funding to unlock smaller brownfield sites and £1.5 billion to regenerate underused land, which is expected to unlock up to 160,000 homes. I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Greg Smith), who spoke about permissions. We could build 1.2 million houses right now if there was the will to do so. Again, there is no need to go anywhere near the green belt.

    Matthew Pennycook (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)

    That 1.2 million figure keeps being thrown around, but does the hon. Gentleman accept that that represents the total existing capacity? It is not an annual figure. The Government’s target remains, I think, 300,000 new homes each and every year.

    James Sunderland

    My understanding is that 1.2 million is the overall figure. It is important to say that. That is what Government sources have told me, so I am inclined to believe it.

    Bracknell is pioneering the nationwide move to use brownfield sites. Some £2.3 million has been allocated to Bracknell Forest Council to assist with three major projects: £1.6 million will go to redeveloping Market Street; £570,000 will go to redeveloping the depot site off Old Bracknell Lane West—importantly, 25% and 35% of those sites are for affordable homes—and £119,000 of public money will go to creating an access road to unlock a piece of tarmacked land that will be redeveloped into four single-person homes and two wheelchair-accessible homes. So Bracknell Forest Council is doing its bit, in line with the national agenda.

    In Bracknell Forest in 2019 and 2020, a total of 1,688 homes were added, of which 1,200 were built. That is a 128% increase on the previous year, so I commend Bracknell Forest Council and Wokingham Borough Council for meeting their local plans. Those Conservative-run councils have a proud record of meeting local plans and delivering homes.

    I will make a slightly negative point about residual land, however, which is important because my constituency area is deemed to be 41% built up—it is mainly an urban, built-up area. Surrey Heath, next door, is 31% built up, Wokingham is 23%, Windsor is 23% and Maidenhead is 18%, so Bracknell is already one of the most built-up areas in the south of England. That is important because we have to ensure that we are giving due consideration to the quality of life of the people who already live there. My loyalty as an MP is to those who live in the constituency, not necessarily to those who want to move into it. It is really important that we preserve constituents’ quality of life.

    My hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham said—this is important—that we should not be building on farming or agricultural land, golf courses, school playing fields or any other leisure areas. The people we represent have to have access to those open spaces.

    Far from encouraging building on farming land, we should be holding developers and councils to account, and issuing them punitive fines if they are doing so. We have to protect what we have; we have to feed our population. I also want to see recognition of the residual land formula in the Bill. If a constituency has only a small amount of land left, let us value that land; let us look after it and make sure that we do not build on it, even if councils quite clearly have targets to meet—thankfully, now advisory—and as we know, section 106 money is quite attractive.

    I will conclude to give my right hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills time at the end. My point is that building is fine in the right areas. Yes, we need more housing, but we must not build on agricultural or green-belt land. Our green and pleasant lands are very important; we must not cover them with dark satanic mills. Once they are gone, they are gone.

  • James Sunderland – 2023 Parliamentary Question on the Backlog of Court Cases

    James Sunderland – 2023 Parliamentary Question on the Backlog of Court Cases

    The parliamentary question asked by James Sunderland, the Conservative MP for Bracknell, in the House of Commons on 10 January 2023.

    James Sunderland (Bracknell) (Con)

    What recent progress he has made on tackling the backlog of court cases.

    Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)

    What recent progress he has made on tackling the backlog of court cases.

    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mike Freer)

    In the Crown court, the outstanding caseload has reduced from 60,400 in June 2021 to about 57,300 cases at the end of March 2022. However, the caseload has increased again, primarily due to the Criminal Bar Association action, which has now stabilised. We are taking action across the criminal justice system to bring down backlogs and improve waiting times for those who use our courts. That includes such things as increasing our judicial capacity and investing a significant amount of money across the criminal justice system.

    James Sunderland

    Could the Minister outline how he intends to reduce backlogs in the family court, in order to minimise the impact on families and children both in Bracknell and beyond?

    Mike Freer

    The issue of family courts is particularly pressing because of the impact on families and children. That is why we are investing a significant amount of funding by increasing the number of fee-paid judges, sitting days and judges who are able to sit, and we continue to invest significant sums in family mediation vouchers, to keep families and children out of the court system.

    Peter Aldous

    The backlog in court cases is causing enormous personal distress and anguish. My constituent originally in 2018 reported an historical rape. The trial has now been postponed four times and is currently scheduled for this June. I shall write to my hon. Friend providing full details of the situation, but can he leave no stone unturned in eliminating the backlog very quickly, as in such historical cases, justice delayed really can mean justice denied?

    Mike Freer

    My hon. Friend raises a very important point. While I cannot talk about a specific case, the allocation and listing of cases is a judicial responsibility, and I can reassure him that the judiciary continue to work to prioritise cases involving custody time limits, as well as those involving vulnerable complainants and witnesses, domestic abuse and serious sex cases. The judiciary are incredibly sensitive to the need to ensure that the most vulnerable complainants and victims get their day in court as fast as possible.

    Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)

    The civil legal aid review finally announced last week is an admission that cuts brought in by the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 have left the civil courts, which the Minister did not even mention, in a dysfunctional state, with a third of providers out of business and longer and longer delays in proceedings. The timetable for the review takes its implementation beyond the general election, which is another abdication of responsibility for the chaos in the courts that this Government have caused. Should they not bring forward either the review or the general election?

    Mike Freer

    I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments. Reform of all parts of the justice system is a priority, but within the spending envelope that we are operating in, we have to spend the money where we can get the best return for our investment. If he has some serious options for how we could spend the money better, I am all ears.

    Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)

    Like the hon. Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous), I have seen extraordinary situations with cases of serious sexual assault where the court case has been listed three years after the attack, in one case, with the victim saying, “I just want to give up and get on with my life.” This is a real challenge. Will the Minister outline what he is doing to get more judges in place, which is one of the brakes on this? When the Public Accounts Committee looked at this, we concluded on the evidence that, even with the interventions he has outlined, the Ministry will only be back on target from where it was with the backlog before covid by about 2024-25.

    Mike Freer

    The hon. Lady raises an important point. There are a variety of reasons why cases can be delayed. It is not just about the availability of the judiciary; sometimes it is the availability of defence and prosecution. There is a particular focus on trying to improve the number of cases that do not come forward because they are incomplete and not ready, and there is a massive campaign to improve the number of available sitting days and courts, but the most important thing is the massive recruitment of 1,000 judges for our criminal justice system.[Official Report, 11 January 2023, Vol. 725, c. 8MC.]

    Mr Speaker

    I call Sir Julian Lewis.

    Hon. Members

    Hear, hear!

    Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)

    Thank you, Mr Speaker; it is kind of colleagues to respond in that way.

    Some months ago, the Government took the welcome decision to raise the retirement age for justices of the peace from 70 to 75. However, the question of reinstatement for those previously caught by the 70 age limit has been left, I believe, to local regions, rather than a wider cohort being allowed to go back on the bench, even if they are willing to travel. Can more flexibility be put into this system, so that people can be reinstated under those circumstances?

    Mike Freer

    It is my understanding that this issue is subject to the oversight of the Lord Chancellor and the Lord Chief Justice. I understand that it is very firmly on their radar and that they will use their discretion as appropriate.

    Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)

    Has the Minister seen the Law Society’s five-point plan to get rid of the backlog, including investing in buildings and staff and properly funding legal aid? If he has not, will he sit down with the Law Society? These people are at the heart of our justice system.

    Mike Freer

    I have seen the plan and I have sat down with the Law Society. The Lord Chancellor and I continue to have fruitful discussions to address the particular issues that the Law Society has raised.

    Mr Speaker

    We now come to the shadow Minister.

    Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)

    It is always someone else’s fault. I have listened to the Minister trying to talk up progress, but both he and I know it is not good enough. I can understand the anxiety in Government over the failure to make any real impact—at the current rate of progress, the backlog will continue into the next Parliament, if not beyond. The Minister will agree that it is bad for victims, staff and defendants and, above all, is a failure of justice. What will he do to reassure our dedicated court staff that he will get the disastrous common platform IT system sorted out? Will he confirm how much extra taxpayers’ cash is being thrown at the system to get it right?

    Mike Freer

    I can reassure the hon. Gentleman that the common platform is not a disaster. In fact, I have taken a specific interest in ensuring the roll-out is appropriate and that users are actually engaged.

    Alex Cunningham

    Have you spoken to the staff?

    Mike Freer

    I have spoken to staff, who said that yes, there are teething problems—that has been admitted—but they are fully committed. They understand that the common platform is a good programme and will work. We are listening to the staff to make sure it works. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman shakes his head. If he wishes to revert to legacy systems that will collapse and make things even worse, he is welcome to make that argument.

  • James Sunderland – 2022 Speech on the Child Support Bill

    James Sunderland – 2022 Speech on the Child Support Bill

    The speech made by James Sunderland, the Conservative MP for Bracknell, in the House of Commons on 9 December 2022.

    We have heard much about the Bill already, so I do not want to go into the detail of it, but I do want to commend my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Siobhan Baillie), who is an outstanding MP and a fantastic champion for her constituency. What she has done in this place in the short time since 2019 for families and family law is amazing, so I congratulate and thank her.

    This Bill is a no-brainer—it is an easy one to support, and I know that the Government are supporting it, so I will not talk for long, but I am delighted to support it. The bit that really interests me is that, where the Department for Work and Pensions agrees that a person has failed to pay an amount of child support maintenance and a deduction from earnings has not been possible or is not appropriate, the Bill will enable the DWP to make a liability order in respect of that amount against the person. There is an element of coercion that we have not seen before, and it is absolutely justified.

    The bit of the Bill that really matters relates to direct pay. Where a parent does not pay their liability in full and on time, the so-called person with care should inform the Child Maintenance Service, which will take swift action to move the case to collect and pay to enforce payment. Without a court order, the Child Maintenance Service may collect arrears through a deduction from earnings order, a deduction from earnings request or a deduction order. The bit I really like is that, with a court-obtained liability order, the Child Maintenance Service may instruct bailiffs to take control of goods and apply to the court for an order of sale of an asset once it is registered with the court.

    This is really important, because we have seen over the years so many cases of absent parents, errant parents and non-resident parents who have an obligation to provide for their children but do not. Constituents in Bracknell come to see me all the time for help in chasing these absent, errant or non-resident parents, and I feel their angst. I can now at least reassure them that the law is being tightened, that non-resident parents can now be held to account much more forcefully and that means now exist whereby they will be forced to make good. This is a step in the right direction. I commend my hon. Friend for all the work she is doing, and I fully support the Bill.

  • James Sunderland – 2022 Parliamentary Question on Support for Veterans

    James Sunderland – 2022 Parliamentary Question on Support for Veterans

    The parliamentary question asked by James Sunderland, the Conservative MP for Bracknell, in the House of Commons on 8 December 2022.

    James Sunderland (Bracknell) (Con)

    What steps his Department is taking to improve support for veterans.

    The Minister for Veterans’ Affairs (Johnny Mercer)

    The Government are committed to ensuring that our veterans and their families have the support that they need to thrive in civilian life. The Government have established the first UK Office for Veterans’ Affairs and the first Minister for Veterans’ Affairs, who attends Cabinet. As part of the role, the Minister will deliver the veterans strategy action plan, which sets out 60 cross-Government commitments that will make the UK the best place in the world to be a veteran by 2028.

    James Sunderland

    The Minister will know that the all-party group on veterans is leading on a bespoke survey of the experiences of veterans when they deal with Veterans UK. Will the Minister commend that survey, alongside the OVA’s survey, and undertake to take our findings seriously? Does he agree that we must leave no stone unturned in all Government Departments to make sure that our veterans get the best possible support?

    Johnny Mercer

    Certainly, and I pay tribute to my hon. Friend and his campaigning, as well as the work of the APPG and the survey that it has put out on Veterans UK. I have been clear—my position has been unchanged over the years—that there are good people working at Veterans UK. That part of Government has been underinvested in by Governments of all colours over many years, and too many people have an experience that is not acceptable. We are working on that. A £44 million investment in digitising Veterans UK will see a significant improvement in its service, but this is an ongoing conversation. I am more than happy to meet my hon. Friend to make sure that we deliver the service that we all want for our veterans.

  • James Sunderland – 2022 Speech on the Finance Bill

    James Sunderland – 2022 Speech on the Finance Bill

    The speech made by James Sunderland, the Conservative MP for Bracknell, in the House of Commons on 28 November 2022.

    As a dutiful Back Bencher, I answered the call of the Whips and wrote about an hour’s worth of speech, but with your blessing, Mr Deputy Speaker, I will restrict my remarks to about five minutes. I suspect that this is the Bill that none of us wanted, but as a pragmatic Conservative, I concede the fiscal imperative. Importantly, this is the right thing to do for the Conservative party, as the party of fiscal pragmatism, and for the country. I see the Bill as a short-term necessity and not for the long term. We need to put our country back on track and, essentially, steady the economic ship. Fiscal and economic security must be the foundation of all policy and I believe that the Bill provides that.

    I do not want to hark back to the ill-fated mini-Budget, but it recognised the basic premise that Governments do not create wealth—businesses and working people do. Therefore, we have to incentivise them to work harder and create more wealth, which, ultimately, represents economic growth. As a low-tax, low-state Conservative, I want to see a low-tax, low-state economy that attracts investment, incentivises growth, rewards workers so that they can keep most of what they earn and ensures that we all enjoy a meaningful standard of living through rising wages. I accept, however, that inflation, borrowing and debt are the elephants in the room.

    I wish to make a few points about the clauses. Clauses 1 to 3 relate to the Energy (Oil and Gas) Profits Levy Act 2022 and include an increase in the levy from 25% to 35%, which is the right thing to do. I would much rather, however, that oil companies pass on their profits to the consumer at the pump and not to their shareholders. That is an absolute no-brainer and I ask the Government to keep the pressure on the oil producers to ensure that the money goes where it needs to.

    Clause 5 and 6 are on income tax. I do not like the fact that the thresholds are being kept where they are. It is really important that, with rising wages, working people should keep more of what they earn, but I can live with the proposal for the reasons that have been outlined. The same principles also apply to the dividend rate and capital gains tax. We have to incentivise people to work harder, to save and to try to derive extra income from what they do. Again, I urge the Ministers to review those measures in due course, along with the income tax thresholds.

    I am a bit concerned about the vehicle excise duty. I completely understand why we may need to bring that in line with diesel and high-emission cars, but we need to incentivise the drive to net zero at the same time. Again, that measure is worthy of review in due course.

    Let me turn briefly to Bracknell, which I am very proud to serve. Bracknell is the silicon valley of the Thames Valley. We have 150 international companies with offices in Bracknell and a lot of small and medium-sized enterprises. Bracknell is the archetypal borough where people benefit from low taxes. In deference to my constituents—those who are working really hard to put food on the table—I urge the Government to make sure that the Bill is seen as a short-term, not a long-term measure.

    Lastly, I recognise the predicament in which we find ourselves. After all, the Government borrowed an additional £450 billion to look after people in the UK during the pandemic. That was to put food on the table and to support people, and it stands to reason that that money has to come back into the Treasury. However, with the Ministers in their place, I want to make an important macro point. As the Government of this country, we need a discussion about what the future holds for the UK. We are currently living beyond our means and writing cheques that we cannot cash, so we as a nation need a serious discussion about what we want in this country, for this country and for our people. What will we do in the future? I commend to the Treasury that we need a grand strategic intent that allows us to work out where we will go, because that will drive policy. I also want to see tax reduced at the earliest opportunity, not least to encourage growth and to ensure that the UK remains firmly competitive internationally. That, I am afraid, is a political imperative to ensure that the “Great” in Great Britain stays great.

  • James Sunderland – 2022 Tribute to HM Queen Elizabeth II

    James Sunderland – 2022 Tribute to HM Queen Elizabeth II

    The tribute made by James Sunderland, the Conservative MP for Bracknell, in the House of Commons on 10 September 2022.

    I rise with profound reverence to pay tribute to Her Majesty the Queen. Ours is not to reason why, but this is the moment we feared would come. The loss of this most adored global icon, the bedrock in our lives for so long, is deep, palpable and impossible to put into words.

    We have heard many superlatives. Perhaps uniquely, all of these are perfect, as she was magnificent, steadfast and inspirational, a devoted mother and simply the best. But the two words that I want to focus on are service and love. When she went up a princess and came down a queen at Treetops in 1952, she was aware of the service that lay ahead, not only as Head of State and of the Commonwealth, but as head of the armed forces. She had already become colonel-in-chief of the Grenadier Guards at the age of 16, and the Royal Navy and Royal Air Force would soon bear her standard. It is impossible not to mention, too, the Household Division, the Royal Engineers and so many of the other Army units for whom she was also one of their own. I cannot think of a single person to whom that famous mantra of “serve to lead” could be more perfectly applied. Her sailors, soldiers and aviators truly loved her, and rightly so.

    Having led soldiers myself on several operational tours, I can tell the House from experience that servicemen and women do not proudly serve their country or even pay the ultimate sacrifice because the prevailing Government ask it of them—nor do they do it to follow orders, or out of camaraderie or even a sense of glory—but because of service to the Crown. The glue that actually binds military service at sea, on land and in the air is the democracy, freedom and sovereignty of this great nation and the monarch who presides over it.

    In my constituency of Bracknell, the Royal Military Academy at Sandhurst proudly occupies its leafy corner of Berkshire. Three times a year, the Queen or her representative would come to her sovereign’s parade, where officer cadets commission into the Army. I can recall my own commissioning in 1992 as if it was yesterday, and the Queen was always a regular feature, smiling in the achievements of others. And who could forget that fine day in 2006 when she attended Prince William’s commissioning parade alongside her beloved Prince Philip—and King Charles, the Queen Consort and, of course, Cadet Prince Harry Wales? The famous painting from that day still hangs imposingly above the famous steps at Old College.

    Beyond Sandhurst, Her Majesty has a wider association with the people of Bracknell. Most recently, she opened the Lexicon shopping centre in 2018, and visited Wellington College in 2009, the Transport Research Laboratory in 1995, the Victuallers’ School in 1994 and the Look Out centre in 1991. In fact, she formally visited my constituency from neighbouring Windsor on at least 20 other occasions during her life. To be in no doubt, Queen Elizabeth II loved her country, the Commonwealth, her family, her people and all those who came into contact with her. She was also loved by them, and the people of Bracknell will always be proud to have known her.

    I visited the Lexicon in Bracknell yesterday to sign the book of condolence, near to where she had opened it four years earlier. I spoke to constituents who were saddened by her passing. Some I met were visibly overcome by grief and loss, uncertain for their own future. And, Mr Speaker, do you know what? It is okay not to feel okay at this profound time. It is okay to mourn her passing, as well as celebrate her life. It is okay to feel a sense of foreboding, and it is okay to feel wretched, as the Queen was very special.

    I want to finish by saying one thing above all else, on behalf of the good people of Bracknell, Crowthorne, Finchampstead, Sandhurst, Wokingham Without and beyond: Your Majesty, thank you. God save the King.

  • James Sunderland – 2022 Letter of Resignation as PPS to DEFRA

    James Sunderland – 2022 Letter of Resignation as PPS to DEFRA

    The text of the resignation statement from James Sunderland on 6 July 2022.

    I have today resigned as Parliamentary Private Secretary to DEFRA. I would like to thank everyone who has taken the trouble to share their views with me in recent months.

    I continue to serve the people of Bracknell, Crowthorne, Finchampstead, Sandhurst and Wokingham Without to the best of my ability.

    James.

  • James Sunderland – 2022 Speech on Iran’s Nuclear Programme

    James Sunderland – 2022 Speech on Iran’s Nuclear Programme

    The speech made by James Sunderland, the Conservative MP for Bracknell, in the House of Commons on 30 June 2022.

    Time is short and we need to progress to the end of this debate, so I will be brief and offer a pragmatic view. I have listened with great interest to Members on both sides of the House and I broadly support the direction of travel. Of course, we are yet to hear from the Minister.

    Of most concern to me is that the time needed to produce uranium for one nuclear weapon in Iran is now three weeks. That is called the break-out time and it has fallen from one year. Clearly, the nuclear aspirations, technologies and advancements have progressed significantly in Iran. I want to pose this question: how might the UK and other allied states in the middle east put Iran back on the road to peace and prosperity as part of the international community? However, this is also about working with Iran and doing what we can to help that regime.

    The big question is about the restoration of Iran’s 2015 nuclear deal, the JCPOA, which has been mentioned. That was agreed with world powers, including China, France, Germany, Russia, the UK and the USA. As we know, the accord was unilaterally abandoned by the US in 2018 under Trump, who then imposed heavy sanctions on Iran. Those have been eased since Biden came into office, but this perhaps put Iran closer than ever to achieving nuclear power. Since 2020, talks have been revived, but only intermittently, so we need the US fully engaged again. Thankfully, indirect talks between Iran and the US began on 29 June in Qatar, with the EU mediating. All sides are agreed that a restored deal is the best outcome, but such a deal could still legitimise Iran’s nuclear transgressions. I am also told by some sources that a successful deal may bring Iranian oil back to the market, but, for the reasons outlined so eloquently by my right hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick), I do not subscribe to that view, although I recognise the counter-arguments.

    So where are we? Earlier this month, in response to a resolution introduced by the US, France, the UK and Germany censuring Iran, it took down 27 IAEA cameras, making tracking activity at its nuclear sites much harder. Iran has never been closer to a nuclear weapon. The stockpile today is 18 times the limit agreed in 2015. Iran has a missile capability—we know that—and in March 2022 the IRGC adopted a new independent branch called the Command for the Protection and Security of Nuclear Centres, so developments are worrying.

    My first question to the Minister is whether we think that sanctions work—I think they probably do, for reasons outlined this afternoon—or whether they are redundant. Is a restored deal the best option for now, noting that Iran is doing this anyway? We know that Iran has committed nuclear transgressions since the 2015 deal. What assessment has been made of the viability of a renewed JCPOA in preventing Iran from achieving a nuclear weapons capability—again, noting that it is happening anyway?

    We know that the sunset provisions of the 2015 deal are coming up to their expiration date. We also know that the international community could face either having to accept Iran as a nuclear power or, potentially, undertaking military action. That is a very stark choice. How much would we have to compromise to renew a deal that would prevent Iran from getting a weapon, noting that Iran is very close to getting that weapon?

    For what it is worth, my take is that Iran should come back into the international community, as we do not want it to progress its activities alongside rogue states. But at what price? We need to better understand the relationship between Iran and its neighbours in the middle east; we also need to better understand the position of our allies in the middle east, to ensure that their needs are best met.

    I suspect that it is pragmatic at this stage to call on the Government to extend the sunset clauses, enact a stricter monitoring regime, retain terrorist proscriptions, reinforce existing friendships and relationships with allies in the middle east and press against Iran’s destabilising impacts in the region, but I would want to see a way forward in which Iran is at the table as part of a solution. But, of course, nothing should be off the table.

  • James Sunderland – 2022 Speech on Support for Ukraine

    James Sunderland – 2022 Speech on Support for Ukraine

    The speech made by James Sunderland, the Conservative MP for Bracknell, in the House of Commons on 2 March 2022.

    Over the past decade or so, we have seen increasing evidence of Russian ambition. In 2007, Russia planted a flag on the seabed at the north pole. In 2008, it invaded Georgia. In 2014, it invaded Crimea. In the same year, we saw Malaysia Airlines flight 17 shot down. In 2018, the events in Salisbury happened. Between 2009 and 2018, there was a 440% increase in cyber-attacks across the world, of which 75% were allegedly from Russia. We have had instability in the Balkans, interference in elections, destabilisation in Bosnia with active intentions to undermine the Dayton agreement—the list goes on.

    This is known as sub-threshold activity, and we have got used to it. We have never really been quite sure, but it has been happening. However, there is nothing sub-threshold about the wilful and destructive invasion of a sovereign neighbour. What has happened over the last week is nothing other than abhorrent. For the Ukrainians, this is about hearts; it is about their homes and their lives. It is about survival; it is about repelling an invasion.

    We have seen the indiscriminate use of weapons, including cluster bombs and thermobaric weapons—death and destruction. No one knows what Putin’s wider intent is. Perhaps it is to restore the Soviet Union; perhaps it is to expand his country; perhaps it is imperialism. We do not quite know, but the response to this incomprehensible action has been comprehensive and clear. Our reaction in the west is not just disbelief; it is beyond that—this is beyond belief.

    The Prime Minister should be praised for his actions to lead the coalition of willing nations. The sanctions have been excellent, and I support 100% the support for refugees. More broadly, I am very comfortable with what NATO is doing, particularly on the supply of aid and equipment. Yes, we have left the European Union, but Members should be under no illusion: we are still supporting Europe. Our engagement with Europe is as strong as ever. I also commend the Opposition Front Benchers, who have been outstanding during the whole crisis. Parliament is at its best when we work together, and there has been an awful lot of sense spoken on both sides of the House over the last week.

    Before I finish, I want to make some points to those on the Front Benches. I have three main observations. First, as politicians, we need to be careful and precise with our language. We must not inflame and we must not be careless, because people are watching—both our allies and those in Russia. This is about global leadership. We need, therefore, to be firm but not inflammatory with our language. By the same token, we need to work with the media, and the media must report this conflict accurately and fairly. Operational security is critical, and we must not get ourselves into a situation where carelessness in the media puts people’s lives at risk.

    Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Melton) (Con)

    My hon. Friend mentions the media. What is his view on whether Russia Today should be allowed to continue to stream in our country?

    James Sunderland

    My humble answer is that it should not. RT is currently spreading Russian propaganda, which nobody wants to see and nobody believes.

    My second point is very important: we must make sure that we are not inadvertently sucked into direct conflict with Russia. The principles of article 5 are sacrosanct. NATO is a defensive alliance. NATO works. We must therefore adhere to our treaty obligations by not intervening directly, until the point that we must. We must resist that, so I say to Ministers: please be wary of come-ons and proxies; please be wary of any attempt by Putin to suck us into a conflict with him and his forces. To be worthy of its pre-eminence, NATO must fulfil the obligations placed upon it as the most successful military alliance ever.

    My third point is very serious: whatever happens in Ukraine—our hearts go out to everyone involved in this ghastly conflict—we need to be ready. If Russia attacks or invades a NATO country, in line with our article 5 obligations, we must be ready for what comes next; we will be at war. As much as nobody wants an escalating conflict, Putin must be clear that if he crosses that line, we will have a big problem. NATO is a defensive alliance, but it is also poised and ready to do what it must.

    This is about planning and positioning. It is about ISTAR—intelligence, surveillance, target acquisition and reconnaissance. It is about our understanding what the Russians are doing. And in the unthinkable event that we do go to war, we cannot afford to watch evil unfold.

  • James Sunderland – 2020 Speech on Covid-19

    James Sunderland – 2020 Speech on Covid-19

    Below is the text of the speech made by James Sunderland, the Conservative MP for Bracknell, in the House of Commons on 12 May 2020.

    Madam Deputy Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to contribute to this most important debate. Covid-19 is a devastating enemy and it is right that parliamentary time should be given to debate its causes and effects. Given that so many people remain on the frontline, I wish to pay my own tribute to key workers right across the UK and beyond who continue to serve others. I also wish to pay my respects to the families and friends of those who have been so gravely affected.

    In my constituency, I have been proud to witness the superb provision of life support to those in isolation. Within Wokingham borough, the hub at St Crispin’s leisure centre has been a beacon of community spirit, and I have been privileged to deliver food to families who cannot venture out. Well done to everyone at Wokingham citizens advice bureau, Link and all the volunteers, who have done so much. In Bracknell, many others have come together to support Healthwatch ​Bracknell Forest and involve Community Services. I say thank you to them and to both Wokingham Borough Council and Bracknell Forest Council for underwriting this vital provision, and for their fiscal responsibility.

    As for central Government, there has been a commendable and entirely conditions-based approach to the pandemic. The word “unprecedented” is often overplayed, but it is quite true that there is no policy precedent for covid-19 and the Government have rightly needed to feel their way on medical and scientific advice. Now is not the time for media hysteria, nor for political point scoring. Indeed, the time for a public inquiry will come and the benefit of hindsight is a powerful weapon, but it is time for an incremental approach to easing the lockdown, based upon common sense. As I stated yesterday, it is not down to the UK Government to regulate every aspect of people’s lives, nor is it for the media to seek definitive clarity on every permutation of what we can and cannot do. It is in fact for us as individuals to follow the guidelines, maintain social distancing, respect others and hence prevent further loss of life.

    In the short time I have left, I urge the Government to think carefully about further mitigation in key areas. First, the decision to impose 14 days of quarantine upon entry to the UK by air will have a devastating effect on individuals, businesses, our global ambitions and the airline industry, particularly in constituencies such as mine that are closely to major airports. At a time when we need the economy to start breathing again, we must consider whether testing before or immediately after arrival will suffice, and ensure that we do not disincentivise air travel. Getting our children back into schools and our staff back into work is also essential. For our country to pay for our public services and enviable support measures, we need to re-stimulate the wealth creation that comes from a vibrant economy. Although many in the Cabinet are conflicted, it is our duty to keep people safe, while we also ease lockdown, and I believe that social distancing remains the key. If people are given the personal responsibility to ensure that the virus does not spread, we will all be able to carry on with our lives as before.

    Lastly, formalised testing arrangements need to be rolled out more widely into care homes. Councils need to know whether they will be reimbursed in full for the expenditure incurred as a result of covid-19. We must find a reliable antibody test, and of course money can be no object in our exhaustive hunt for a vaccine.